G.R. No. 177114.  January 21, 2010.*

MANOLO A. PEÑAFLOR, petitioner, vs. OUTDOOR

CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
NATHA­NIEL T. SYFU, President, MEDYLENE M.
DEMOGENA, Finance Manager, and PAUL U. LEE,
Chairman, respondents.

Remedial Law; Appeals; Rule that a Rule 45 petition deals

only with legal issues is not an absolute rule; It admits of
exceptions; The conflicting factual findings below are not binding
on the Court which retain its authority to pass on the evidence
presented and draw conclusions therefrom.—We see no merit in
this argument as the rule that a Rule 45 petition deals only with
legal issues is not an absolute rule; it admits of exceptions. In the
labor law setting, we wade into factual issues when conflict of
factual findings exists among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and
the CA. This is the exact situation that obtains in the present case
since the labor arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that
there had been constructive dismissal, while the NLRC’s and the
CA’s factual findings contradicted the labor arbiter’s findings.
Under this situation, the conflicting factual findings below are not
binding on us, and we retain the authority to pass on the evidence
presented and draw conclusions therefrom.
Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Evidence; In
employee termination disputes, the employer bears the burden of
proving that the employee’s dismissal was for just and valid cause.
—The first is

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
 498

the settled rule that in employee termination disputes, the

employer bears the burden of proving that the employee’s
dismissal was for just and valid cause. That Peñaflor did indeed
file a letter of resignation does not help the company’s case as,
other than the fact of resignation, the company must still prove
that the employee voluntarily resigned. There can be no valid
resignation where the act was made under compulsion or under
circumstances approximating compulsion, such as when an
employee’s act of handing in his resignation was a reaction to
circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign. In sum,
the evidence does not support the existence of voluntariness in
Peñaflor’s resignation.
Same; Same; Same; The principle that all doubts in the
interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be
interpreted in favor of the workingman has been extended by
jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the
employer and the employee.—Another basic principle is that
expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code—that all doubts in the
interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be
interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been
extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence
presented by the employer and the employee. As shown above,
Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits
of the company’s case, particularly in the appreciation of the
clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were
based. In such contest of evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us
to rule in Peñaflor’s favor.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    Vicente S. Pulido for petitioner.
    Kho, Bustos, Malcontento, Argosino Law Offices for
respondents.

 
 

499

BRION,  J.:
 
Petitioner Manolo A. Peñaflor (Peñaflor) seeks the
reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision1 dated
December 29, 2006 and its resolution2 dated March 14,
2007, through the present petition for review on certiorari
filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The assailed CA
decision affirmed the September 24, 2002 decision3 of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that in turn
reversed the August 15, 2001 decision4 of the Labor
Arbiter.5
 
The Factual Antecedents
 
Peñaflor was hired on September 2, 1999 as
probationary Human Resource Department (HRD)
Manager of respondent Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing
Corporation (Outdoor Clothing or the company). As HRD
head, Peñaflor was expected to (1) secure and maintain the
right quality and quantity of people needed by the
company; (2) maintain the harmonious relationship
between the employees and management in a role that
supports organizational goals and individual aspirations;
and (3) represent the company in labor cases or
proceedings. Two staff members were assigned to work
with him to assist him in undertaking these functions.
Peñaflor claimed that his relationship with Outdoor
Clothing went well during the first few months of his
employment; he designed and created the company’s Policy
Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job Expectations, and
Organizational Set-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate Justice

Jose C. Reyes and Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas (retired),
concurring; Rollo, pp. 22-31.
2 Id., at p. 40.
3 Penned by Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, and concurred in by
Commissioner Roy V. Señeres and Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso; Id.,
at pp. 85-100.
4 Id., at pp. 45-52.
5 Labor Arbiter Florentino R. Darlucio.

 
 

500

Up during this period. His woes began when the company’s

Vice President for Operations, Edgar Lee (Lee), left the
company after a big fight between Lee and Chief Corporate
Officer Nathaniel Syfu (Syfu). Because of his close
association with Lee, Peñaflor claimed that he was among
those who bore Syfu’s ire.
 When Outdoor Clothing began undertaking its alleged
downsizing program due to negative business returns,
Peñaflor alleged that his department had been singled out.
On the pretext of retrenchment, Peñaflor’s two staff
members were dismissed, leaving him as the only member
of Outdoor Clothing’s HRD and compelling him to perform
all personnel-related work. He worked as a one-man
department, carrying out all clerical, administrative and
liaison work; he personally went to various government
offices to process the company’s papers.
When an Outdoor Clothing employee, Lynn Padilla
(Padilla), suffered injuries in a bombing incident, the
company required Peñaflor to attend to her hospitalization
needs; he had to work outside office premises to undertake
this task. As he was acting on the company’s orders,
Peñaflor considered himself to be on official business, but
was surprised when the company deducted six days’ salary
corresponding to the time he assisted Padilla. According to
Finance Manager Medylene Demogena (Demogena), he
failed to submit his trip ticket, but Peñaflor belied this
claim as a trip ticket was required only when a company
vehicle was used and he did not use any company vehicle
when he attended to his off-premises work.6
After Peñaflor returned from his field work on March 13,
2000, his officemates informed him that while he was
away, Syfu had appointed Nathaniel Buenaobra
(Buenaobra) as the new HRD Manager. This information
was confirmed by Syfu’s memorandum of March 10, 2000 to
the entire office stating

_______________

6 Rollo, p. 161.

 
 

501

that Buenaobra was the concurrent HRD and Accounting

Manager.7 Peñaflor was surprised by the news; he also felt
betrayed and discouraged. He tried to talk to Syfu to clarify
the matter, but was unable to do so. Peñaflor claimed that
under these circumstances, he had no option but to resign.
He submitted a letter to Syfu declaring his irrevocable
resignation from his employment with Outdoor Clothing
effective at the close of office hours on March 15, 2000.8
_______________

7 Id., at p. 66; the March 10, 2000 memorandum reads:

To:         All concerned
From:    Accounting Department
Date:     March 10, 2000
Re:         Human Resources Department
This is to inform you that Mr. Edwin Buenaobra is concurrently our
Accounting and Human Resources Department Manager. Aside
from his present task in Accounting, he is now responsible to
oversee the operation of Human Resources Department, which
includes acquiring, motivating, maintaining, and developing people
in their jobs for the achievement of individual, company and
society’s goal.
Any transaction and problems pertaining to Human Resources can
now be coursed through him. This memo shall take effect
immediately.
For your information and guidance.
Thank you.
Nathaniel Syfu
President and COO
Cc: All departments, Bulletin Board
8 CA Rollo, p. 203; the resignation letter reads:
Mr. Nathaniel Y. Syfu
Chief Corporate Officer
Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corporation
Sir:
Please accept my irrevocable resignation effective at the close of
office on March 15, 2000.

 
 
502

Peñaflor then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with

the labor arbiter, claiming that he had been constructively
dismissed. He included in his complaint a prayer for
reinstatement and payment of backwages, illegally
deducted salaries, damages, attorney’s fees, and other
monetary claims.
Outdoor Clothing denied Peñaflor’s allegation of
constructive dismissal. It posited instead that Peñaflor had
voluntarily resigned from his work. Contrary to Peñaflor’s
statement that he had been dismissed from employment
upon Syfu’s appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD
Manager on March 10, 2000, Peñaflor had in fact continued
working for the company until his resignation on March 15,
2000. The company cited as evidence the security report
that Peñaflor himself prepared and signed on March 13,
2000.9
Outdoor Clothing disclaimed liability for any of
Peñaflor’s monetary claims. Since Peñaflor had voluntarily
resigned, Outdoor Clothing alleged that he was not entitled
to any backwages and damages. The company likewise
denied making any illegal deduction from Peñaflor’s salary;
while deductions were made, they were due to Peñaflor’s
failure to report for work during the dates the company
questioned. As a probationary employee, he was not yet
entitled to any leave credit that would offset his absences.
In his August 15, 2001 decision, the labor arbiter found
that Peñaflor had been illegally dismissed.10 Outdoor
Clothing was consequently ordered to reinstate Peñaflor to
his former or to an equivalent position, and to pay him his
illegally deducted salary for six days, proportionate 13th
month pay, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages.

_______________

Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Manolo A. Peñaflor
9  Id., at p. 204.
10 Supra note 4.

 
 
503

Outdoor Clothing appealed the labor arbiter’s decision

with the NLRC. It insisted that Peñaflor had not been
constructively dismissed, claiming that Peñaflor tendered
his resignation on March 1, 2000 because he saw no future
with the corporation due to its dire financial standing. Syfu
alleged that he was compelled to appoint Buenaobra as
concurrent HRD Manager through a memorandum dated
March 1, 2000 to cover the position that Peñaflor would
soon vacate.11 The appointment was also made to address
the personnel matters that had to be taken cared of while
Peñaflor was on unauthorized leave. Incidentally, Outdoor
Clothing alleged that Peñaflor had already been given two
notices, on March 6 and 11, 2000 (absence without official
leave memoranda or the AWOL memoranda), for his
unauthorized absences. In a memorandum dated March 3,
2000 addressed to Syfu, Buenaobra accepted the
appointment.12
_______________

11 Rollo, p. 66; Syfu’s March 1, 2000 memorandum reads:

To:        Edwin Buenaobra
From:        Nathaniel Syfu
Date:        March 1, 2000
Subject:        HR Manager Resignation
Mr. Manolo A. Peñaflor has informed me of his intention to resign
effective March 15, 2000 to be a full time teacher in a school he is
presently connected with.
As such, due to the limited time provided, management has no
other alternative but to appoint you as concurrent Human
Resources Head to fill in the position of Manolo A. Peñaflor. We will
formalize this announcement prior to March 15, 2000. Meanwhile,
please coordinate with Manny for the pending HR matters labor
cases now with him. He was already advised of this stopgap
measure.
I trust you will handle this added assignment to the best of your
capacity.
Nathaniel Syfu
Chief Corporate Officer.
12 Id., at p. 67.

 
 
504

Peñaflor contested Syfu’s March 1, 2000 memorandum,

Buenaobra’s March 3, 2000 memorandum, and the AWOL
memoranda, claiming these pieces of evidence were
fabricated and were never presented before the labor
arbiter. He pointed out that nothing in this resignation
letter indicated that it was submitted to and received by
Syfu on March 1, 2000. He claimed that it was submitted
on March 15, 2000, the same date he made his resignation
effective. The AWOL memoranda could not be relied on, as
he was never furnished copies of these. Moreover, he could
not be on prolonged absence without official leave, as his
residence was just a few meters away from the office.
The NLRC apparently found Outdoor Clothing’s
submitted memoranda sufficient to overturn the labor
arbiter’s decision.13 It characterized Peñaflor’s resignation
as a response, not to the allegedly degrading and hostile
treatment that he was subjected to by Syfu, but to Outdoor
Clothing’s downward financial spiral. Buenaobra’s
appointment was made only after Peñaflor had submitted
his resignation letter, and this was made to cover the
vacancy Peñaflor’s resignation would create. Thus,
Peñaflor was not eased out from his position as HRD
manager. No malice likewise was present in the company’s
decision to dismiss Peñaflor’s two staff members; the
company simply exercised its management prerogative to
address the financial problems it faced. Peñaflor, in fact,
drafted the dismissal letters of his staff members. In the
absence of any illegal dismissal, no basis existed for the
monetary awards the labor arbiter granted.
Peñaflor anchored his certiorari petition with the CA on
the claim that the NLRC decision was tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, although he essentially adopted the
same arguments he presented before the labor arbiter and
the NLRC.

_______________

13 Supra note 3.

 
 
505

In a decision dated December 29, 2006,14 the CA

affirmed the NLRC’s decision, stating that Peñaflor failed
to present sufficient evidence supporting his claim that he
had been constructively dismissed. The CA ruled that
Peñaflor’s resignation was knowingly and voluntarily
made. Accordingly, it dismissed Peñaflor’s certiorari
petition. It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration
that Peñaflor subsequently filed.15 Faced with these CA
actions, Peñaflor filed with us the present petition for
review on certiorari.
 
The Parties’ Arguments
 
Peñaflor insists that, contrary to the findings of the
NLRC and the CA, he had been constructively dismissed
from his employment with Outdoor Clothing. He alleges
that the dismissal of his two staff members, the demeaning
liaison work he had to perform as HRD Manager, the
salary deduction for his alleged unauthorized absences, and
the appointment of Buenaobra as the new HRD manager
even before he tendered his resignation, were clear acts of
discrimination that made his continued employment with
the Outdoor Clothing unbearable. He was thus forced to
resign.
Outdoor Clothing claims that Peñaflor voluntarily
resigned from his work and his contrary allegations were
all unsubstantiated. The HRD was not singled out for
retrenchment, but was simply the first to lose its staff
members because the company had to downsize. Thus, all
HRD work had to be performed by Peñaflor. Instead of
being grateful that he was not among those immediately
dismissed due to the company’s retrenchment program,
Peñaflor unreasonably felt humiliated in performing work
that logically fell under his department; insisted on having
a full staff complement; absented himself from work
without official leave; and demanded payment for his
unauthorized absences.

_______________

14 Supra note 1.
15 Supra note 2.

 
 
506

The Issue and The Court’s Ruling

 
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
A preliminary contentious issue is Outdoor Clothing’s
argument that we should dismiss the petition outright
because it raises questions of facts, not the legal questions
that should be raised in a Rule 45 petition.16
We see no merit in this argument as the rule that a Rule
45 petition deals only with legal issues is not an absolute
rule; it admits of exceptions. In the labor law setting, we
wade into factual issues when conflict of factual findings
exists among the labor arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA. This
is the exact situation that obtains in the present case since
the labor arbiter found facts supporting the conclusion that
there had been constructive dismissal, while the NLRC’s
and the CA’s factual findings contradicted the labor
arbiter’s findings.17 Under this situation, the conflicting
factual findings below are not binding on us, and we retain
the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw
conclusions therefrom.18
The petition turns on the question of whether Peñaflor’s
undisputed resignation was a voluntary or a forced one, in
the latter case making it a constructive dismissal
equivalent to an illegal dismissal. A critical fact necessary
in resolving this issue is whether Peñaflor filed his
letter of resignation before or after the appointment
of Buenaobra as the
_______________

16 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1.

17 The labor arbiter cited the performance of clerical and liaison work
by an HRD manager and the appointment of a new HRD manager as basis
for concluding that Peñaflor’s resignation letter was involuntarily
executed. On the other hand, the NLRC declared the Peñaflor tendered
his resignation because he saw no future in becoming a regular employee
because Outdoor Clothing was financially unstable; see Rollo, pp. 49-51
and 97-98.
18 R&E Transport, Inc. et al. v. Latag, 369 Phil. 1113; 422 SCRA 698
(2004); Mendoza v. National Labor Relations Commission, 467 Phil. 355;
310 SCRA 846 (1999).

 
 
507

new/concurrent HRD manager. This question also gives

rise to the side issue of when Buenaobra’s appointment was
made. If the resignation letter was submitted before Syfu’s
appointment of Buenaobra as new HRD manager, little
support exists for Peñaflor’s allegation that he had been
forced to resign due to the prevailing abusive and hostile
working environment. Buenaobra’s appointment would
then be simply intended to cover the vacancy created by
Peñaflor’s resignation. On the other hand, if the
resignation letter was submitted after the appointment of
Buenaobra, then factual basis exists indicating that
Peñaflor had been constructively dismissed as his
resignation was a response to the unacceptable
appointment of another person to a position he still
occupied.
The question of when Peñaflor submitted his resignation
letter arises because this letter—undisputably made—was
undated. Despite Peñaflor’s claim of having impressive
intellectual and academic credentials,19 his resignation
letter, for some reason, was undated. Thus, the parties
have directly opposing claims on the matter. Peñaflor
claims that he wrote and filed the letter on the same date
he made his resignation effective—March 15, 2000.
Outdoor Clothing, on the other hand, contends that the
letter was submitted on March 1, 2000, for which reason
Syfu issued a memorandum of the same date appointing
Buenaobra as the concurrent HRD manager; Syfu’s
memorandum cited Peñaflor’s intention to resign so he
could devote his time to teaching. The company further
cites in support of its case Buenaobra’s March 3, 2000
memorandum accepting his appointment. Another piece of
evidence is the Syfu memorandum of March 10, 2000,
which informed the office of the appointment of Buenaobra
as the concurrent Head of HRD—the position that Peñaflor
occupied. Two other memoranda are alleged to exist,
namely, the AWOL memoranda of March 6 and 11, 2000,
allegedly sent to Peñaflor.

_______________

19 Rollo, p. 9.

 
 
508

Several reasons arising directly from these pieces of

evidence lead us to conclude that Peñaflor did indeed
submit his resignation letter on March, 15, 2000, i.e., on
the same day that it was submitted.
First, we regard the Syfu memorandum of March 1, 2000
and the memorandum of Buenaobra of March 3, 2000
accepting the position of HRD Head to be highly suspect. In
our view, these memoranda, while dated, do not constitute
conclusive evidence of their dates of preparation and
communication. Surprisingly, Peñaflor was never informed
about these memoranda when they directly concerned him,
particularly the turnover of responsibilities to Buenaobra if
indeed Peñaflor had resigned on March 1, 2000 and a
smooth turnover to Buenaobra was intended. Even the
recipients of these communications do not appear to have
signed for and dated their receipt. The AWOL memoranda,
to be sure, should have been presented with proof of service
if they were to have any binding effect on Peñaflor.
Second, we find it surprising that these pieces of
evidence pointing to a March 1, 2000 resignation—
specifically, Syfu’s March 1, 2000 memorandum to
Buenaobra about Penaflor’s resignation and Buenaobra’s
own acknowledgment and acceptance—were only presented
to the NLRC on appeal, not before the labor arbiter. The
matter was not even mentioned in the company’s position
paper filed with the labor arbiter.20 While the presentation
of evidence at the NLRC level on appeal is not unheard of
in labor cases,21 still sufficient explanation must be
adduced to explain why this irregular practice should be
allowed. In the present case, Outdoor Clothing totally
failed to explain the reason for its omission. This failure, to
us, is significant, as these were the clinching pieces of evi-
_______________

20 CA Rollo, pp. 91-95.

21 See PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, et al., 329 Phil. 581; 260 SCRA 758 (1996).

 
 
509

dence that allowed the NLRC to justify the reversal of the

labor arbiter’s decision.
Third, the circumstances and other evidence
surrounding Peñaflor’s resignation support his claim that
he was practically compelled to resign from the company.
Foremost among these is the memorandum of March 10,
2000 signed by Syfu informing the whole office (“To: All
concerned”) about the designation of Buenaobra as
concurrent Accounting and HRD Manager. In contrast with
the suspect memoranda we discussed above, this
memorandum properly bore signatures acknowledging
receipt and dates of receipt by at least five company
officials, among them the readable signature of Demogene
and one Agbayani; three of them acknowledged receipt on
March 13, 2000, showing that indeed it was only on that
day that the appointment of Buenaobra to the HRD
position was disclosed. This evidence is fully consistent
with Peñaflor’s position that it was only in the afternoon of
March 13, 2000 that he was told, informally at that, that
Buenaobra had taken over his position. It explains as well
why as late as March 13, 2000, Peñaflor still prepared and
signed a security report,22 and is fully consistent with his
position that on that day he was still working on the excuse
letter of certain sales personnel of the company.23
We note that the company only belatedly questioned the
motivation that Peñaflor cited for his discriminatory
treatment, i.e., that he was caught in the bitter fight
between Syfu and Lee, then Vice President for Operations,
that led the latter to leave the company.24 After Lee left,
Peñaflor alleged that those identified with Lee were singled
out for adverse

_______________

22 Supra note 8.
23 CA Rollo, p. 101.
24  Outdoor Clothing never disputed that there was a fight between
Syfu and Lee in any of the pleadings it filed before the labor arbiter, the
NLRC, and the CA. It was only in the Memorandum it filed before the
Court that it denied such allegation.

 
 
510

treatment, citing in this regard the downsizing of HRD that

occurred on or about this time and which resulted in his
one-man HRD operation. We say this downsizing was only
“alleged” as the company totally failed—despite Penaflor’s
claim of discriminatory practice—to adduce evidence
showing that there had indeed been a legitimate
downsizing. Other than its bare claim that it was facing
severe financial problems, Outdoor Clothing never
presented any evidence to prove both the reasons for its
alleged downsizing and the fact of such downsizing. No
evidence was ever offered to rebut Peñaflor’s claim that his
staff members were dismissed to make his life as HRD
Head difficult. To be sure, Peñaflor’s participation in the
termination of his staff members’ employment cannot be
used against him, as the termination of employment was a
management decision that Peñaflor, at his level, could not
have effectively contested without putting his own job on
the line.
Peñaflor’s own service with the company deserves close
scrutiny. He started working for the company on
September 2, 1999 so that by March 1, 2000, his
probationary period would have ended and he would have
become a regular employee. We find it highly unlikely that
Peñaflor would resign on March 1, 2000 and would then
simply leave given his undisputed record of having
successfully worked within his probationary period on the
company’s Policy Manual, Personnel Handbook, Job
Expectations, and Organizational Set-up. It does not
appear sound and logical to us that an employee would
tender his resignation on the very same day he was
entitled by law to be considered a regular employee,
especially when a downsizing was taking place and he
could have availed of its benefits if he would be separated
from the service as a regular employee. It was strange, too,
that he would submit his resignation on March 1, 2000 and
keep completely quiet about this development until its
effective date on March 15, 2000. In the usual course, the
turnover alone of responsibilities and work loads to the
successor in a small company would have prevented the
matter from being completely under wraps for 10 days
before any announcement was ever
  
 
511

made. That Peñaflor was caught by surprise by the

turnover of his post to Buenaobra is in fact indicated by the
company’s own evidence that Peñaflor still submitted a
security report on March 13, 2000. On the whole, Peñaflor’s
record with the company is not that of a company official
who would simply and voluntarily tender a precipitate
resignation on the excuse that he would devote his time to
teaching—a lame excuse at best considering that March is
the month the semester usually ends and is two or three
months away from the start of another school year.
In our view, it is more consistent with human experience
that Peñaflor indeed learned of the appointment of
Buenaobra only on March 13, 2000 and reacted to this
development through his resignation letter after realizing
that he would only face hostility and frustration in his
working environment. Three very basic labor law principles
support this conclusion and militate against the company’s
case.
The first is the settled rule that in employee termination
disputes, the employer bears the burden of proving that the
employee’s dismissal was for just and valid cause.25 That
Peñaflor did indeed file a letter of resignation does not help
the company’s case as, other than the fact of resignation,
the company must still prove that the employee voluntarily
resigned.26 There can be no valid resignation where the act
was made under compulsion or under circumstances
approximating compulsion, such as when an employee’s act
of handing in his resignation was a reaction to
circumstances leaving him no alternative but to resign.27 In
sum, the evidence does not support the existence of
voluntariness in Peñaflor’s resignation.

_______________

25  Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Oberio, et al., G.R. No.

168424, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 365.
26 Vicente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175988, August 24, 2007, 531
SCRA 240.
27  See Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 348 Phil. 334; 284 SCRA 308 (1998).

 
 
 512

Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of

the Labor Code—that all doubts in the interpretation and
implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in
favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended
by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented
by the employer and the employee.28 As shown above,
Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the
merits of the company’s case, particularly in the
appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC
and CA decisions were based. In such contest of evidence,
the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor’s favor.
Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed
given the hostile and discriminatory working environment
he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the
escalating acts of unfairness against him that culminated
in the appointment of another HRD manager without any
prior notice to him. Where no less than the company’s chief
corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no
alternative but to resign from his employment.29
Last but not the least, we have repeatedly given
significance in abandonment and constructive dismissal
cases to the employee’s reaction to the termination of his
employment and have asked the question: is the complaint
against the employer merely a convenient afterthought
subsequent to an abandonment or a voluntary resignation?
We find from the records that Peñaflor sought almost
immediate official recourse to contest his separation from
service through a complaint for illegal dismissal.30 This is
not the act of one who

_______________

28 Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of

Appeals, 494 Phil. 697; 454 SCRA 737 (2005).
29 Unicorm Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte, 486 Phil. 493; 444 SCRA 287
(2004).
30 The records do not contain a categorical statement when the illegal
dismissal complaint was actually filed before the labor arbiter. Peñaflor
stated in his Memorandum before the Court that it was filed on March 14,
2000—a day after he learned of Buenaobra’s appointment, but Outdoor
Clothing stated in its appeal with the

 
 
513
 voluntarily resigned; his immediate complaints
characterize him as one who deeply felt that he had been
wronged.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petitioner’s petition for
review on certiorari, and REVERSE the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87865
promulgated on December 29, 2006 and March 14, 2007,
respectively. We REINSTATE the decision of the labor
arbiter dated August 15, 2001, with the MODIFICATION
that, due to the strained relations between the parties,
respondents are additionally ordered to pay separation pay
equivalent to the petitioner’s one month’s salary.
Costs against the respondents.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Abad and Perez,

JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed. That

of the Labor Arbiter reinstated with modification.

Note.—The consistent rule is that if doubts exist

between the evidence presented by the employer and the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the
latter. (Acebedo Optical vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 527 SCRA 655 [2007])
 
——o0o——

 
 

_______________

NLRC that the complaint was filed on May 20, 2000. Either way, the
Court believes that Peñaflor sought recourse against his illegal dismissal
within a reasonable period.

 
 
 
 
 
 

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.